GIRISH RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proce dure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter re ferred as Cr. PC.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 20 -02 -1995, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1994, whereby appellant Girish Rani, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity hereinafter referred as I. PC.), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default of pay ment of which, rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year was di rected to be served.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) PROSECUTION story, in brief, is that appellant Girish Ram is resident of vil lage Fagali, Patti Tharkot, District Pithoragarh. P. W. 1 Jhupa Devi was also resident of the same village. Her family had just two - three months back before the date of the incident, shifted to near by Village Chaumel, Patti Chaumel. On 12 -07 -1993, at about 1:00 RM. , Jhupa Devi, had gone to jungle of Village Fagali to graze her cattle. She was aged 15 -16 years. The appellant Girish Ram, came there and snatched the sickle from the hand of P. W. 1 Jhupa Devi. He over powered and made her lie down. When Jhupa Devi wanted to open her mouth to raise alarm, the accused by one hand closed her mouth and by another hand started pulling her panty. P. W. 1 Jhupa Devi, tried, to resist her best but the ac cused took out his knife and threatened her of d|re consequences. Thereafter, accused/appellant committed rape on Km. Jhupa Devi, who cried in pain for help. But nobody could hear her cries in the jungle. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence after committing rape. Soon thereafter it started raining and clothes of Jhupa Devi, got wet. She want back to her home and her parents came from Pithoragarh (District Headquarter) only by the evening. Jhupa Devi, narrated the entire incident to her parents. On next date, parents of the victim first contacted to the parents of the accused but they too expressed a very indifferent attitude. Ultimately, P. W. 3 Hem Ram (father of the victim), lodged First Information Report (Ext. A -1) with the Patwari of the circle (In Uttaranchal hills certain revenue officers are given police powers ). The girl was taken to the lady doctor, for medical ex amination. P. W. 6 Bal Kishan Pant, a Revenue Official, investigated the crime. After medical examination by P. W. 4 Dr. Mamta Sharma, to ascertain the age of the girl, P. W. 1 Jhupa Devi was taken to P. W. 5 Dr. P. K. Gupta, Radiologist. After preparing the site plan (Ext. A -6), interrogating the witnesses, and on com pletion of the investigation, the Investi gating Officer, submitted the charge sheet (Ext. A -10) against accused Girish Ram (present appellant ).